Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[james bond]

That is why it is so obvious that creation "science" is not science.

Creation science presented BOTH sides of the argument and I'll stay on God's side, thank you.

OTOH, you and your science only presented your side and disregarded the other. Now, you're believing everything because of radiometric decay? It's really stupid. No wonder you tried to bring in the age of the Earth. I mean if the Bible had the age of the Earth, then you could present something to contradict it. But just your presentation has nothing to contradict. I won't argue further as I said my piece and only say that it could be wrong.

I enjoyed what AIG presented. We can ignore radiometric dating.

 

[james bond]

Where did the Lucifer character ever mention "religioner science"? You may choose to live your life in trembling fear of characters invented two thousand years ago and intended to frighten and coerce the gullible, why would you think others should share your fears and superstitions?

Evolution and evolutionary thinking are not scientific theories supported by mountains of evidence, as atheist scientists would have us believe. They are a part of Satan’s grand plan to keep people from understanding that they need a savior.

The former is the truth and is backed up by the evidence of creation science. The latter is as close to my only preaching here as the libs have gone atheist.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution and evolutionary thinking are not scientific theories supported by mountains of evidence, as atheist scientists would have us believe. They are a part of Satan’s grand plan to keep people from understanding that they need a savior.

The former is the truth and is backed up by the evidence of creation science. The latter is as close to my only preaching here as the libs have gone atheist.

Your conspiracy theories reveal a true dark side of religious extremist. To willingly reject the indisputable evidence for biological evolution suggest a great deal of extremist indoctrination and a surrender to fear and ignorance. The data and the research underlies the undeniable fact that life propogates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that those modifications are passed on, and that over time, many modifications can lead to a species that is very different from before.

The challenge to the extremist religioners is very simple: present a single instance of supernatural / magical design by your gods. Just one! . Everything from the intricacies of a snowflake to the DNA that is the basic building block of biological life is explained in detail by science. You insist the magical hand of three partisan gods accounts for all of existence so, please state the evidence for it. None of the creationer ministries have so far been able to do so. Complexity does not require a designer... it requires an explanation

 

[james bond]

Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it.

Summary:
Your friends complain about dispersion in K-Ar, but don't mention it at all in C14 data. Kind of disingenuous dontya think. And your source was about K-Ar. You never gave a cogent response to Rh-Os which 1) has a long stable half life, 2) with a parent that is tightly contained, 3) a daughter isotope that is likewise contained, and 4) both are very rare and the daughter product barely exists naturally. So no contamination or dispersion.

Second point first. You don't know about C14 and fossils dating. What do you know? Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists. How would it apply to them?

As for the sun using up a lot of its energy in a billion years, here it is:

"However, if the sun were billions of years old, it would have been 30 percent fainter in the distant past. But if the sun were that much fainter, then Earth would have been a frozen wasteland and life would not have been possible. 4"

"The sun resists naturalistic formation scenarios. Secular astronomers currently believe that the sun (as with other stars) was formed by the collapse of a nebula—a giant cloud of hydrogen and helium gas in space. Astronomers have discovered thousands of nebulae, but no one has ever seen a nebula collapse in on itself to form a star. The outward force of gas pressure in a typical nebula far exceeds the meager inward pull of gravity. As far as we know, nebulae only expand and never contract to form stars. Even if gravity could somehow overcome gas pressure, magnetic fields and angular momentum would tend to resist any further collapse, preventing the sun from forming at all. It seems that science confirms what Scripture teaches: God made the greater light to rule the day."

The Solar System: The Sun

Then God made...the greater light to rule the day. (Genesis 1:16) At the heart of our solar system is the sun, a stable hydrogen “bomb” that gives off more energy every second than a billion major cities would use in an entire year. The sun is remarkable in its complexity and power. When we...

www.icr.org

 

[james bond]

We already know you don't believe the science because your creation web site says so. You have never shown a source that tells why YECs dismiss the fact that all measuring instruments, specifically mass spectrometers, used at their limit are dealing with noise... Never. You have wrapped yourself in a self-contradiction.

That is why it is so obvious that creation "science" is not science. You can't fool us.

This is so wacko. Again, creation scientists came up with science and its history. They got it from the Bible. I think you can understand that unless you are so far gone that you can't even play with yourself.

OTOH, atheist scientists got theirs from Satan. I know you don't believe that, but there can be no coincidence when today's atheist science contradicts everything that God and creation science stated with evolution and evolutionary thinking. We can add radiometric dating to that pile. All of aforementioned including uniformitarianism started a little before Darwin. I don't expect you to believe that you got your science from Satan, but it is what it is.

 

[james bond]

Your conspiracy theories reveal a true dark side of religious extremist.

Sure, whenever I mention Satan, it is dark, but that is the truth. All of that was foretold in the Bible about evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, uniformitarianism, and so on has come true. I can't make this stuff up. The Bible said it first. Do you want the scripture? The Bible can't change, but history has shown it to be true with its prophecies. The atheist science can change tomorrow. I can't help it if you don't believe it and cast it aside as "religioner."

 

[Hollie]

Sure, whenever I mention Satan, it is dark, but that is the truth. All of that was foretold in the Bible about evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, uniformitarianism, and so on has come true. I can't make this stuff up. The Bible said it first. Do you want the scripture? The Bible can't change, but history has shown it to be true with its prophecies. The atheist science can change tomorrow. I can't help it if you don't believe it and cast it aside as "religioner."

That's really disappointing. For all the claimed supermagical powers of your gods, there's not a single instance in all of history that you can point to and claim that ''see, that took the supermagical power of my gods to perform''.

It's been said that a person who never sheds their childhood fears has never grown up. If you believe that a ''satan'' boogeyman is hiding under your bed, you might want to consider the trajectory of your adulthood.

So I'm clear, for gods who are allegedly responsible for opening every petal of every flower, for every raindrop that falls, for magically creating all of existence, there isn't a single event in history or a single magically occurring event that you can point to and proclaim, ''see, only the magic of the gods could cause that to happen''?

As to alleged biblical ''prophecies'', those vague, ambiguous creations of soothsayer charlatans suffer from the lack of rational examination of the gods making thunder and lightning. Creationers have this need to play oneupsmanship with with bibles vs. carnival soothsayers reading their crystal balls.

 

[Wuwei]

Creation science presented BOTH sides of the argument and I'll stay on God's side, thank you.

OTOH, you and your science only presented your side and disregarded the other. Now, you're believing everything because of radiometric decay? It's really stupid. No wonder you tried to bring in the age of the Earth. I mean if the Bible had the age of the Earth, then you could present something to contradict it. But just your presentation has nothing to contradict. I won't argue further as I said my piece and only say that it could be wrong.

I enjoyed what AIG presented. We can ignore radiometric dating.

The evidence of an age of billions of years isn't only about radiology on the earth, it is about the entire universe - From observations in astronomy galaxies are also billions of years old.

Second point first. You don't know about C14 and fossils dating. What do you know? Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists. How would it apply to them?

The point is that the reference I gave concerning Rh-Os unequivocally gives a date of the earth that at least in the billions of years.

As for the sun using up a lot of its energy in a billion years, here it is....

Your reference starts out with the words.

"Then God made ... the greater light to rule the day...."​

That is not science it is biblical. The reference has some "explanations" of star formation that are absolutely wrong. See this reference:

How Do Stars Form?

Stars form when clouds of interstellar dust and gas collapse in on themselves and heat up, eventually leading to the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. Several stars typically form out of a single cloud, making star clusters extremely common.

www.reference.com

This is so wacko. Again, creation scientists came up with science and its history. They got it from the Bible. I think you can understand that unless you are so far gone that you can't even play with yourself.

OTOH, atheist scientists got theirs from Satan. I know you don't believe that, but there can be no coincidence when today's atheist science contradicts everything that God and creation science stated with evolution and evolutionary thinking. We can add radiometric dating to that pile. All of aforementioned including uniformitarianism started a little before Darwin. I don't expect you to believe that you got your science from Satan, but it is what it is.

Science does not contradict the bible. It contradicts what YEC read into the bible. Astronomers and geologists got their understanding from observation and experiments. not satan.

.

 

[james bond]

That's really disappointing. For all the claimed supermagical powers of your gods, there's not a single instance in all of history that you can point to and claim that ''see, that took the supermagical power of my gods to perform''.

It's been said that a person who never sheds their childhood fears has never grown up. If you believe that a ''satan'' boogeyman is hiding under your bed, you might want to consider the trajectory of your adulthood.

So I'm clear, for gods who are allegedly responsible for opening every petal of every flower, for every raindrop that falls, for magically creating all of existence, there isn't a single event in history or a single magically occurring event that you can point to and proclaim, ''see, only the magic of the gods could cause that to happen''?

As to alleged biblical ''prophecies'', those vague, ambiguous creations of soothsayer charlatans suffer from the lack of rational examination of the gods making thunder and lightning. Creationers have this need to play oneupsmanship with with bibles vs. carnival soothsayers reading their crystal balls.

You just don't understand creation science, the Bible, nor Christianity.

 

[Hollie]

You just don't understand creation science, the Bible, nor Christianity.

I understand you're backtracking.

Religioners claim all of existence is the result of the hands of supernatural gods, yet, religioners can't identify a single event in all of human history that can be attributed to supernatural causation.

You're a terrible spokes-zealot for the industry of creationer proselytizing.

 

[james bond]

The evidence of an age of billions of years isn't only about radiology on the earth, it is about the entire universe - From observations in astronomy galaxies are also billions of years old.

The age of the universe and Earth is from the same nerd atheist scientists in 1956 and radiometric dating. Can you admit that it's only you and the atheist scientists who care about the age of the universe and Earth? Creation scientists think radiometric dating is erroneous how it was done in 1950s. They only think radiocarbon dating on organic materials is valid if C14 is remaining -- Carbon-14 Dating—Understanding the Basics.

Your reference starts out with the words.
"Then God made ... the greater light to rule the day...."That is not science it is biblical. The reference has some "explanations" of star formation that are absolutely wrong. See this reference:
How Do Stars Form?

It is first person testimony by God. Got made the EMS and separated day and night in order to start time. We see that he created space and matter first. Science backs it up as matter has to be there before time. Your side has no detailed explanation of how any of this happened. Just the need for billions of years right off the bat which is impossible without space, matter, and all the energy of the universe.

The point is that the reference I gave concerning Rh-Os unequivocally gives a date of the earth that at least in the billions of years.

Lol, I'm not quibbling because it's very important to you. I don't think the other atheist scientists care. They're going by other radiometric decay from 1956. Have you discovered who it was yet?

Science does not contradict the bible. It contradicts what YEC read into the bible. Astronomers and geologists got their understanding from observation and experiments. not satan.

Evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, and more contradict the Bible. Atheist science contradicts the Bible and creation science. We disagree on everything. This is why only one of us is right.

You're still hung up on YEC and know very little of the Bible. Give me scripture on where you get your claim. No, your astronomers and geologists started with atheism, uniformitarianism, and Darwinism which led to evolution and evolutionary thinking. See Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. What you are referring to is the scientific method which a creation scientist came up with. We use that whenever possible? For example, it was used to debunk radiometric dating. See RATE.

I don't expect you to believe in Satan, but don't you think it's strange that everything that God stated of creation science is contradicted by atheist science?

 

[james bond]

I understand you're backtracking.

Religioners claim all of existence is the result of the hands of supernatural gods, yet, religioners can't identify a single event in all of human history that can be attributed to supernatural causation.

You're a terrible spokes-zealot for the industry of creationer proselytizing.

Lol, I'm not backtracking. Nor am I proselytizing. You're just wrong and wacko because you just don't know with atheist science. At least, the ones who know can present an atheist science argument.

 

[Hollie]

Lol, I'm not backtracking. Nor am I proselytizing. You're just wrong and wacko because you just don't know with atheist science. At least, the ones who know can present an atheist science argument.

There is no creationer science argument. You make the mistake of proselytizing religioner dogma as if it has any relevance beyond mere dogma.

I'm left to conclude that the successes of science; the peer reviewed data, the fact-based progression of theory to confirming law is the result of experimentation and verification.

I have no reason to accept outlandish tales and fables over a reality based worldview.

 

[Hollie]

The age of the universe and Earth is from the same nerd atheist scientists in 1956 and radiometric dating. Can you admit that it's only you and the atheist scientists who care about the age of the universe and Earth? Creation scientists think radiometric dating is erroneous how it was done in 1950s. They only think radiocarbon dating on organic materials is valid if C14 is remaining -- Carbon-14 Dating—Understanding the Basics.


It is first person testimony by God. Got made the EMS and separated day and night in order to start time. We see that he created space and matter first. Science backs it up as matter has to be there before time. Your side has no detailed explanation of how any of this happened. Just the need for billions of years right off the bat which is impossible without space, matter, and all the energy of the universe.


Lol, I'm not quibbling because it's very important to you. I don't think the other atheist scientists care. They're going by other radiometric decay from 1956. Have you discovered who it was yet?


Evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, and more contradict the Bible. Atheist science contradicts the Bible and creation science. We disagree on everything. This is why only one of us is right.

You're still hung up on YEC and know very little of the Bible. Give me scripture on where you get your claim. No, your astronomers and geologists started with atheism, uniformitarianism, and Darwinism which led to evolution and evolutionary thinking. See Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. What you are referring to is the scientific method which a creation scientist came up with. We use that whenever possible? For example, it was used to debunk radiometric dating. See RATE.

I don't expect you to believe in Satan, but don't you think it's strange that everything that God stated of creation science is contradicted by atheist science?

There has never been any first person testimony from any of your gods.

I'm not sure where your brand of religionism comes from but you're being taken advantage of.

 

[james bond]

There is no creationer science argument. You make the mistake of proselytizing religioner dogma as if it has any relevance beyond mere dogma.

I'm left to conclude that the successes of science; the peer reviewed data, the fact-based progression of theory to confirming law is the result of experimentation and verification.

I have no reason to accept outlandish tales and fables over a reality based worldview.

Lol, again it's actual science as creation science. There's nothing creationer or religioner about it whatever that means. It's atheist science that came afterward and is wrong, wrong, wrong. However, I do understand the need for it and why the liberals were tricked as they're mostly atheists.

You're just left to conclude because of you know who. The only evidence I have is how can atheist science contradict EVERYTHING that God said scientifically? You know who talked through James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin. They based their science on atheism first. You know is really powerful and loves to hide. I am amazed at the power he holds over the atheists.

Again, you do not understand creationists and creation science.

 

[Hollie]

Lol, again it's actual science as creation science. There's nothing creationer or religioner about it whatever that means. It's atheist science that came afterward and is wrong, wrong, wrong. However, I do understand the need for it and why the liberals were tricked as they're mostly atheists.

You're just left to conclude because of you know who. The only evidence I have is how can atheist science contradict EVERYTHING that God said scientifically? You know who talked through James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin. They based their science on atheism first. You know is really powerful and loves to hide. I am amazed at the power he holds over the atheists.

Again, you do not understand creationists and creation science.

You do not understand creationer dogma. It is religion under a burqa of fear and ignorance.

To claim that your gods ''said anything scientifically'' is to promote falsehoods.

You live in fear of boogeyman who you describe as ''you know who''. Grow up!

 

[Wuwei]

Can you admit that it's only you and the atheist scientists who care about the age of the universe and Earth?

Of course scientists especially geologists and astronomers are interested in the timing of events and the age of the universe. That is an important part of science. What is your point?

It is first person testimony by God. Got made the EMS and separated day and night in order to start time. We see that he created space and matter first. Science backs it up as matter has to be there before time. Your side has no detailed explanation of how any of this happened. Just the need for billions of years right off the bat which is impossible without space, matter, and all the energy of the universe.

Scripture is not a backup for science which is evidenced based.

Lol, I'm not quibbling because it's very important to you. I don't think the other atheist scientists care. They're going by other radiometric decay from 1956. Have you discovered who it was yet?

We went through that in a different thread. Why do you keep bringing that up again? It disproves YEC.

Evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, and more contradict the Bible. Atheist science contradicts the Bible and creation science. We disagree on everything. This is why only one of us is right.

One of us? It is between hundreds of years of scientist's work and people that refuse to believe that the bible is an allegory. Not just "one of us."

You're still hung up on YEC and know very little of the Bible. Give me scripture on where you get your claim.

Are you kidding? That is funny.

No, your astronomers and geologists started with atheism, uniformitarianism, and Darwinism which led to evolution and evolutionary thinking. See Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. What you are referring to is the scientific method which a creation scientist came up with. We use that whenever possible? For example, it was used to debunk radiometric dating. See RATE.

I don't expect you to believe in Satan, but don't you think it's strange that everything that God stated of creation science is contradicted by atheist science?

Creationists, even the founder Sir Francis Bacon, abandon the scientific method. That makes creation science vacuous as a science.

.

 

[Wuwei]

...burqa of fear...

That is a funny way of putting it.

 

[james bond]

You do not understand creationer dogma. It is religion under a burqa of fear and ignorance.

To claim that your gods ''said anything scientifically'' is to promote falsehoods.

You live in fear of boogeyman who you describe as ''you know who''. Grow up!

You have learned nothing of the Bible from me here and are blinded by your fake atheist science. You may as well be the flat Earth believer as it would be a comparable belief to evolution, but the consequences are much worse;. Flat Earth believers only experience ridicule.

 

[danielpalos]

No one is claiming the bible may not have any anecdotal evidence.

However, evolution seems more "intelligently" designed.